JUDGMENT

Sandeep V. Marne, J. - Petitioner, working as Assistant Law Officer in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (M.C.G.M) seeks antedating of his promotion to that post by grant of deemed date of 3rd July, 2008 with further relief of promotion to the post of Deputy Law Officer. He also sets up a challenge to the seniority list of Assistant Law Officers published on 13th July, 2021. Order dated 8th March, 2022 passed by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, rejecting his demands is also under challenge.

2. Petitioner, belonging to Vimukta Jati category came to be appointed on the post of Junior Law Officer in M.C.G.M. on 31st December, 1998. Though, he had submitted Caste Certificate at the time of his appointment, the validity certificate from the competent scrutiny committee was neither issued nor submitted to the respondent-Municipal Corporation.

3. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 8th February, 2008. In the meantime, his case was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Law Officer by the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting convened on 18th June, 2008. However, on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, he was not recommended for promotion. The disciplinary proceedings culminated into imposition of penalty of withholding increments for three years on permanent basis. The penalty period got over on 30th November, 2011.

4. Another disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him vide Memorandum of Chargesheet dated 30th January, 2013 in which penalty of censure and fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on him. Amount of fine was recovered from the salary payable to him for May, 2013.

5. Petitioner had failed to submit the Caste Validity Certificate from competent scrutiny committee in respect of the caste claim and the same came to be issued on 4th February, 2016 and submitted with the respondent-Municipal Corporation on 1st March, 2016. After submission of the Caste Validity Certificate, his case was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Law Officer and promotion was granted to that post vide order dated 21st November, 2016. By subsequent order dated 28th May, 2018 the petitioner was granted financial upgradation in the pay scale of Assistant Law Officer (time bound promotion) w.e.f 31st October, 2011.

6. Draft Seniority List of Assistant Law Officer was published on 13th July, 2021. Petitioner raised his objection to the draft Seniority List on 16th July, 2021. The seniority list was finalised on 22nd March, 2022. In the final seniority list, petitioner's name figures at serial no.45, considering the date of his promotion to the post of Assistant Law Officer as 21st November, 2016. As against this, the name of respondent no.4 figures at serial no.9 by considering her date of promotion as 3rd July, 2008. The petitioner claims promotion to the post of Assistant law Officer w.e.f 3rd July, 2008 and consequent correction in the seniority list and further promotion to the post of Deputy Law Officer. His representation raising demands came to be rejected by communication dated 8th March, 2022, which is also subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

7. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Gore the learned Counsel would submit that petitioner became due for promotion to the post of Assistant Law Officer on 3rd July, 2008 which was unlawfully denied to him without any valid reason. This has resulted in respondent no.4, who was otherwise junior to him, superseding him in the seniority list of Assistant Law Officers. He has also raised alternate plea that after the period of penalty in respect of first disciplinary proceedings was over on 30th November, 2011, the petitioner ought to have been promoted to the post of Assistant Law Officer, as neither any proceedings were pending nor the petitioner was undergoing punishment during the period 30th November, 2011 to 31st May, 2013. He would submit that even though time-bound promotion is granted to him w.e.f. 31st Oc